Users must agree to the new clause to the Terms of Use in order to continue using Xbox LIVE. Changes to the Terms of Use are designed to ensure that our customers have an easy way to file a dispute without requiring formal legal action. They may now bring a dispute to our attention by filling out a simple Notice of Dispute form found at www.xbox.com/notice and mailing in documentation in support of their claim. We will then work to resolve the dispute to their satisfaction within 60 days. Any customer unsatisfied with the outcome of this informal process may easily initiate arbitration with the American Arbitration Association.

Customers may also choose to bring their claims in their local small claims court if they meet the normal jurisdictional requirements. For detailed information, please visit: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Legal/LiveTOU.

"The terminology in the ToS used to 'opt out' applies only to future changes made after this agreement," Kotaku reported. So you have to accept this agreement, and give up your right to class-action status and most legal action against Microsoft, but you can opt out of any future changes.

So you have to accept this agreement, and give up your right to class-action status and most legal action against Microsoft

Is that even legal? I don't know the law well, but it would seem like this wouldn't be allowed, and if you did try to sue them, a court would just tell them that clause wasn't valid and therefore doesn't apply.

Its legal because you do have another option: don't use xbox live. Private companies can do many horrible things in their contracts, its up to users to vote with their wallets. Not sure if an xbox revolt is possible though, many people love the service.

Its legal because you do have another option: don't use xbox live. Private companies can do many horrible things in their contracts, its up to users to vote with their wallets. Not sure if an xbox revolt is possible though, many people love the service.

Except this isn't about xbox live, this is about the xbox 360 altogether. There is no other service available if you want to play xbox 360 games(single player included). Whereas with AT&TM there are other options to do the same exact thing with the same exact phones.

How could it be legal? Live is one of the major features of the system, and then they make drastic changes to the console, removing your rights in the process, and your alternative is to simply stop using it? Surely you could ask for a refund in that case, since the product no longer does what it was advertised?

Would you be able to get a refund on your x-box? It seems shady that you could have purchased it with the intent to use it online with live and at that time you agreed to the terms. Now you don't agree to the terms, can you return the product?

Its an agreement that can be broken by either party at any time. Just like when you see a corporation break its agreement when it failed to uphold its part and they walk away scott free - provided they are not sufficiently challenged in court.

The same rules apply for the consumer, unfortunately most consumers do not have piles of cash to pay for having a fully staffed legal team on hand when needed. : (

Its a golden rule problem, those that have the gold keep making the rules. This will remain true for as long as we let them.

Just wipe your Xbox drive before pursuing any legal action against Microsoft. What contract?

Yeah, good idea; judges love it when evidence has obviously been destroyed.

Will future Xbox 360 games become unplayable without updating through XBox Live? I guess they can make whatever crazy rules they want for access to their network, but I don't see how they can stop you from using the device for its intended purpose without having you sign a contract when you buy it.

So let's review the crazy legal stories that have happened this week: medical patents, a law that allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely without being formally charged, corporations can legally force you to give up your rights in order to use their products and services... and I'm sure I left some out. Seriously, things seems to be going from bad to downright insane. So... I'll be able to vote in new representatives who will put an end to this fiasco in the next elections right?

This is overblown. The only way you would realistically be a part of a suit against Redmond in the first place is if it were part of a large class-action case (for example, if they suffered a privacy breach like Sony did....which is almost certain the reason this happened in the first place) and in those you'd get virtually nothing, it's the attorneys who would make out like bandits.

It's a game console. If you don't like their terms don't use it. No one caring has less to do with corporations having a lot of money and more to do with the fact it it's a video game console.

Next up for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is to target all these click to accept license terms. No need for 40+pages of iTunes agreements, or having to sign away all your rights should a product not live up to its expectations.

Just another example that fits in perfectly with the HBO special "Hot Coffee".

The documentary "Hot Coffee" (about the Mcdonalds suit, not the GTA hack) covers this quite a bit and it's pretty depressing how much these arbitration suits have proliferated. I'm actually surprised that Microsoft has taken this long to get a binding arbitration clause in their EULA.

I'm sure glad I don't live in the US: consumer rights are constantly being run afoul of and eroded just in order to squeeze a few more pennies out of them and into the pockets of the big guys. Here in Finland you simply cannot give away your basic rights -- like the right to sue -- even if you wanted to, something I wish more countries would copycat.

Remember folks, when you elect conservatives, conservatives select judges. Those judges have long been of the school: personal rights are subverted to states' rights are in turn subverted to corporate/business interests. Unless your contract says, "the person who clicked this EULA has to suck corporate officer cock," you won't win. Even then, the corporation will get a hearing.

It's a game console. If you don't like their terms don't use it. No one caring has less to do with corporations having a lot of money and more to do with the fact it it's a video game console.

Stating the obvious, game consoles are one of the major modes of entertainment and socializing. There are currently three game consoles for sale, so there isn't that much choice and other factors besides this differentiate them.

Hard to blame MS though. It is a dick move, but we the people are the ones making rules and allowing MS to do it.

This is overblown. The only way you would realistically be a part of a suit against Redmond in the first place is if it were part of a large class-action case (for example, if they suffered a privacy breach like Sony did....which is almost certain the reason this happened in the first place) and in those you'd get virtually nothing, it's the attorneys who would make out like bandits.

It's a game console. If you don't like their terms don't use it. No one caring has less to do with corporations having a lot of money and more to do with the fact it it's a video game console.

Your argument seems to be that it is a trivial matter, and would likely be of little consequence. If that is the case, then it's a trivial matter for both sides.

It's a game console. If you don't like their terms don't use it. No one caring has less to do with corporations having a lot of money and more to do with the fact it it's a video game console.

Stating the obvious, game consoles are one of the major modes of entertainment and socializing. There are currently three game consoles for sale, so there isn't that much choice and other factors besides this differentiate them.

Hard to blame MS though. It is a dick move, but we the people are the ones making rules and allowing MS to do it.

The problem is the law, not MS or companies doing things that are allowed by the law. It would be irresponsible to shareholders for you to not try and protect yourselves from costly lawsuits by using legal contractual language to prevent them.

No smart company would ever say: "You know what, I know I could protect myself from a lawsuit if I tried, but I like consumers and I am sure none of them will try and sue us, so I'll just trust it all to work out in the end."

This is overblown. The only way you would realistically be a part of a suit against Redmond in the first place is if it were part of a large class-action case (for example, if they suffered a privacy breach like Sony did....which is almost certain the reason this happened in the first place) and in those you'd get virtually nothing, it's the attorneys who would make out like bandits.

It's a game console. If you don't like their terms don't use it. No one caring has less to do with corporations having a lot of money and more to do with the fact it it's a video game console.

What if you were a big fan of XBLA games and then some cosmic ray triggered the anti-cheating protection and locked you out of all of the games you bought and paid for for no fault of your own? And then Microsoft told you to just get lost, not our problem, cheater. Your only recourse now is to go to Microsoft Court in Microsoftland where Judge Microsoft finds that you are indeed scum and the company owes you nothing why did you even bother?

I mean I can see both sides of this issue. Companies shouldn't have to deal with nuisance suits (which most of the lawsuits filed against them are--just people trying to extract some bucks from the company for stupid crap they did), but I hate the way it throws the baby out with the bathwater and also screws people with legitimate complaints.